Bicycling for exercise; calorie counter designations yield different calorie burns

kcjchang

^ pacing, the other lo-fi data that you can immediately realize is the ability to model your physiological response by plugging into the modified Bannister's impulse-response model to track your fitness, fatigue, and form (stress-strain). Accuracy is important but "mid range" models ($500-$1,000) are "good" enough as long as it is consistent. Keep an eye out, I just pickup a Pioneer L/R & computer for $800 plus $65 shipping to have it installed on my cranks at their Long Beach shop. Power2Max NG NCO looks pretty enticing (so long as you have the right cranks plus future ability to enable current NG functionalities). Stages was my intro and other than finding out I have a 56%/44% L/R imbalance with new Pioneer, I was very happy with it (ignorance is bliss).

meganpettigrew86

I have often found the calorie estimates for exercise a little high. I might do 5 or 6 hours of gardening in a day and it says I have burnt over a 1000 calories. My classes I do for muay thai are counted the same, but they definitely are not, comparing a class focussed on technique to one on sparring simply does not work.
If I were to eat the exercise calories earnt I would probably gain weight. I find the best trick is to avoid eating the exercise calories, therefore if they are inaccurate it does not matter! Having said that, if like me you have had a binge that you need to compensate for, do twice as much as required to counter it. Aim for green so to speak.

DX2JX2

meganpettigrew86 wrote: »

I have often found the calorie estimates for exercise a little high. I might do 5 or 6 hours of gardening in a day and it says I have burnt over a 1000 calories. My classes I do for muay thai are counted the same, but they definitely are not, comparing a class focussed on technique to one on sparring simply does not work.
If I were to eat the exercise calories earnt I would probably gain weight. I find the best trick is to avoid eating the exercise calories, therefore if they are inaccurate it does not matter! Having said that, if like me you have had a binge that you need to compensate for, do twice as much as required to counter it. Aim for green so to speak.

Not to derail the thread too much but your approach is the right one and it is quite likely that you did not burn 1000 calories in the garden (or at least, 1000 extra calories on top of the amount you would have burned just sitting on the couch).

dagiffy

Rode the bike to work today for the first time. Only 4 miles, but I figured out a route that lets me go DOWN the Sasquatch Hill on the way to work...according to GPS I reach nearly 40 mph just coasting down...then ride relatively flat roads with some small tortures mixed.

On the way back I turn off before that hill and go around it. It makes the return trip 4.5 miles but as my heart rate is about 130 the whole time I'm good and ragged at the end. Best of all I don't feel as though I'm going to die.

Hey, this bike riding can be fun if you aren't trying to be Lance Armstrong taking on steep climbs without chemical assistance!

sijomial

dagiffy wrote: »

Rode the bike to work today for the first time. Only 4 miles, but I figured out a route that lets me go DOWN the Sasquatch Hill on the way to work...according to GPS I reach nearly 40 mph just coasting down...then ride relatively flat roads with some small tortures mixed.

On the way back I turn off before that hill and go around it. It makes the return trip 4.5 miles but as my heart rate is about 130 the whole time I'm good and ragged at the end. Best of all I don't feel as though I'm going to die.

Hey, this bike riding can be fun if you aren't trying to be Lance Armstrong taking on steep climbs without chemical assistance!

Chapeau!

Cycling just for calorie burns is very fleeting.
Doing something fun and enjoyable can last a lifetime.

dagiffy

sijomial wrote: »

dagiffy wrote: »

Rode the bike to work today for the first time. Only 4 miles, but I figured out a route that lets me go DOWN the Sasquatch Hill on the way to work...according to GPS I reach nearly 40 mph just coasting down...then ride relatively flat roads with some small tortures mixed.

On the way back I turn off before that hill and go around it. It makes the return trip 4.5 miles but as my heart rate is about 130 the whole time I'm good and ragged at the end. Best of all I don't feel as though I'm going to die.

Hey, this bike riding can be fun if you aren't trying to be Lance Armstrong taking on steep climbs without chemical assistance!

Chapeau!

Cycling just for calorie burns is very fleeting.
Doing something fun and enjoyable can last a lifetime.

I'm starting to see that myself now. Since I radically altered my diet on July 5 I have dropped 23 lbs (50kg?) but started to think that's not enough, fitness would work well, also. I was trying to discover what the calorie burn was, as I am tracking (for the time being) everything I eat and the exercise I perform every day.

What I discovered yesterday is that I just like to ride my bike for the pleasure of it. Fitness will come as a byproduct.

bwogilvie

dagiffy wrote: »

What I discovered yesterday is that I just like to ride my bike for the pleasure of it. Fitness will come as a byproduct.

Hi OP — you've been bitten by the bug! When I got back into cycling in '97, a normal ride for me was 5-10 miles, and 15+ miles was long. Now a normal ride is 15-30 and I get in many rides every year upwards of 62 miles/100 km every year, some of them on hilly dirt. It kind of creeps up on you. Don't measure yourself against anyone else: was damn proud of doing a 15-mile ride back when that was a stretch, and I'm happy to congratulate anyone who pushes themselves beyond their comfort zone.

Fitness comes with practice; if you get serious, you can add structured training, but if your goal is to have fun while getting some moderate exercise, there's no need to go down that rabbit hole. Hill training is one of the classic ways to improve overall fitness, so you're in essence already doing that. Regardless of your weight and fitness, the best way to approach hills is in a low gear that lets you spin up them (i.e., pedaling at a relatively fast cadence/RPM). "Mashing" (pedaling slowly in a high gear) is a good way to strain your knees.

You've got some good advice already on the calorie burning side of things. My own rule of thumb is that for a 180-lb. rider plus bike combination, I burn 30-35 calories per mile on flat to moderately hilly terrain, and 35-40 calories per mile on hilly terrain. That's only an estimate, but it's close enough to my actual weight change vs. calories eaten to be reasonably accurate. Running is a lot more efficient as a way to burn calories quickly, but cycling is a lot more fun!

TimothyFish

dagiffy wrote: »

Hello all. First post. Errrr...second. I posted this at the end of another thread but then thought maybe no one would see it, so I started my own.

I'm wondering about my bike rides. I have several steep and intimidating hills on a 3.5 mile route I do three times per week (I just started; my third ride today). When I get to the top of these hills I am nearly unable to be able to take enough air in. I couldn't speak if I wanted to other than "aaaaggghhhhh!!".

I have a calorie counter at cronometer.com. When I enter in, say, "moderate" biking for 20 minutes, it tells me I burned 216 calories. That's all well and good. Who knows? But when I put in "vigorous" bike ride for the same time, it tells me 323 calories burned.

My question is this: Another person, say Rider B, in great shape could do my same route in the same time and not be breathing heavy at all, effectively moderate for him. Rider A, me, does it as fast as he can and at the end is completely and utterly spent. It takes about 10 minutes for me to breathe normally again.

I'd say Rider A did a VIGOROUS workout, while RIDER B did a moderate workout, right? Did we burn the same about of calories because we covered the same distance on the same bike with the same body weight in the same time? Or did the fact that RIDER B wasn't challenged nearly as much mean that less calories were burned?

Or conversely, if RIDER A goes all out to exhaustion because he's in pathetic physical condition, did he burn more calories? As I get into shape, this ride will gradually change from vigorous to moderate, for me, but will the calories burned remain the same? They don't on calorie counters, because when you change the intensity from vigorous to moderate, the calories burned changes significantly.

I guess it comes down to "vigorous" versus "moderate". The ride is quite vigorous to me, but for a great rider it wouldn't be much effort at all to do it in the same time I did it. Who burned more calories if all other specs are the same?

If the two riders cover the same distance in the same time then the more experienced rider will burn fewer calories. But generally more experienced riders will burn more calories over the same distance because they will ride faster.

Mr_Knight

dagiffy wrote: »

My question is this: Another person, say Rider B, in great shape could do my same route in the same time and not be breathing heavy at all, effectively moderate for him. Rider A, me, does it as fast as he can and at the end is completely and utterly spent. It takes about 10 minutes for me to breathe normally again.

I'd say Rider A did a VIGOROUS workout, while RIDER B did a moderate workout, right?

Nope. Same route, same conditions, same bike, same sized rider, same speed -> same calorie burn.

How hard it feels doing it makes no meaningful difference.

unixbills

Also my first post.

First of all congratulations and keep it going!!

Just my opinion and some observations after riding for years and tracking different peoples data for years.

In answer to your question - I somewhat agree with some of these answers but everyone is different. Different people even of the same weight are very different. Men and woman are different. The same person on a different day is different. These numbers are very subjective. I somewhat agree that similar people of the same sex under the same conditions including fitness level, recovery level, fuel, acclimation, and a bunch more things would likely have very similar numbers. In real life that never happens. These numbers are useful for trends and for comparison to themselves.

I can't post any of my friends data of similar weight to me but they are very different. Hugely different on the same ride measured with the same device. Saturday my wife and myself did our weekly long ride - 62mi. The numbers come from a garmin that is connected to MFP. Screen shots attached. I weight about forty pounds more than my wife which is a large difference but on the same ride my calorie count was 1634 and hers was 623. She is a lifetime athlete and I am not. If you look at the screen shot she also did an hour run when we got back and with the run she is still only at 1050ish. Her performance is better, her recovery is better, her heart rate is lower (way lower), and she burns way less calories. I also ride with people my own weight (or more) that burn less than me because of their fitness level, experience, and so on. Now if you reduce the load down to something that is comfortable and easy for both of you the numbers will be closer. A big hill and running beyond your personal threshold will dramatically affect your efficiency and the numbers. My wife's burn in a race when she is pushing it goes way higher. The good news is you will get better quickly and the numbers are very valuable to track your own progress.

If you are doing 40ish coasting down that hill on your Jamis that is one big hill! I am not sure I could make it up that hill. You are my hero. Personally I think you should do easier rides most of the time. That hill would fall into the interval training category and once a week is plenty.

Most coaches will use your ability to speak, respiratory rate, and heart rate as a good indicator of training level and you are way up there in zone 4 or 5. Go look at any training program you like as a guide. I strongly recommend a heart rate monitor. It is a great tool and also helps show your improvement. (besides you are flirting with max heart rate if not over on that hill). My resting heart rate and recovery time at the top of hills is dramatically improved (even if my wife leaves me in the dust) over a few years ago. We use all Garmin devices just because of Garmin Connect and we have all the data. It is very encouraging to go back and see the improvement.

I wish you the very best. I am going to train harder after reading your post. You are an inspiration. Thank You!

dagiffy

Hey thank you. Didn't know I could be inspiring so soon...well, as for that hill, I have never made it up without stopping. Going down, on the other hand, I've reached 39.6 mph...according to my GPS Road Bike Pro. It's fast enough that even in lowest gear I can't pedal fast enough to drive the back wheel...so the top speed is just coasting down, it has nothing to do with me other than I bend down so that my face is nearly as low as the handlebars. It's a lot of fun, but if someone pulls out in front of me I'm toast. My bike will stop but I'll keep going for a while.